Sitting of 18 February 1892

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MILBANK PRISON BILL—(No. 140.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYI do not think there will be any opposition to this Bill, the object of which is to vest the site of Millbank Prison in the Commissioners of Works. Millbank Prison was built in the last century, and the land has been held by the Crown for the purposes of a prison, and now that it has been determined that the prison is no longer required, the Crown has no power to part with it without the authority of Parliament. As all other Crown lands are

    799
    under the control of the Commissioners of Works, we proceed by the simple expedient of vesting this also in the Commissioners. The Bill is a very short one, and needs, I think, no further explanation. Under the "Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885," it is provided that such sites may be sold to the Metropolitan Board of Works—the then authority in such matters—for the housing of the working classes. That provision is still unrepealed, and therefore the Crown is still under the moral obligation to let the County Council have the refusal of the site at a fair market price.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Gorst.)
    MR. J. ROWLANDSI am not going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but as it will be in the recollection of the House that I took an active part in opposition to a proposal for dealing with another prison site, I should like it to be clearly understood that in talking of a fair market price to be given for the land for the purpose of erecting houses for the working classes, there is no idea of proceeding in the manner adopted with the Coldbath Prison site—the ridiculous plan of asking so much per prison cell for the site now used for Post Office purposes. I shall be glad to know that nothing of the kind will prevent the land being used for housing the working classes.
    SIR JOHN GORSTThis Bill, if passed into law, will not in any way hamper the Government in offering the site to the County Council. The land will be sold in the ordinary way at so much per acre, the only provision is for a fair market price by which it is intended that the country in general should not be made to pay for improvements in the Metropolis. The taxpayers of the whole of the United Kingdom have an interest in this, and hence it is that the County Council of London, should the Council desire to acquire the land, must do so at a fair market price.
    MR. W. REDMONDI do not know whether the Government are anxious to have the Bill passed to-night, but if there is no hurry, I think it would not be unreasonable to ask that it should be postponed until it can be taken at an earlier hour than this.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERThe site at the present time is entirely unused. The Bill may be for the benefit of the working classes of London, and I must say I think it ill becomes an Irish Member to offer opposition to it.
    MR. CAUSTONI would appeal to the hon. Member to allow the Second Reading of the Bill now, in order that the County Council may have the matter to deal with without delay.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.—(No. 114.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SEALE-HAYNEIt is obvious that at this late hour I cannot go into a full explanation of the provisions of this Bill. It is a Bill in which Industrial and Co-operative Societies take the greatest possible interest, and it is founded on the unanimous recommendation of the Town Holdings Committee. It proposes to give power for the enfranchisement of leaseholders in accordance with the Report of that Committee, and I sincerely trust that inasmuch as the Bill is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and arouses no party question, the House will now permit the Bill to be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
    MR. AMBROSEThe Bill, the Second Reading of which the hon. and learned Gen-

    801
    tleman has just proposed, involves a very important principle. The question of giving to industrial and provident societies facilities for acquiring the property they hold, or lease, is one thing, and I am quite prepared to do anything to assist the development of these societies, provided always—
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 112.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MACARTNEYThis Bill passed a Second Reading unanimously last year, though afterwards its progress was interrupted by hon. Members who represented the views of some owners of Irish fisheries who believed their interests were threatened. I have communicated with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr), and he on the part of fishery owners has consented to the Second Reading, provided that the Bill is afterwards referred to a Select Committee. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will consent to this course being adopted. The questions which are raised are somewhat technical and important enough to have the consideration of a Committee upstairs when the owners of fisheries claim they have a right to have their case heard. I believe the objections they urge are of such a technical nature that they could not, with advantage, be debated in the House. It is morally certain that Debate would simpiy take the form of statements on one side and contradiction on the other. I think a Select Committee, with evidence before them, will arrive at a just and fair conclusion on a matter of considerable importance both to the fishery owners and the milling industries throughout Ireland. Mill-owners have substantial reasons
    802
    for complaint, and the first clause is designed to remedy a grievance imposed by the Act of 1879. When that Act was passed it was said that the only object was to transfer jurisdiction from the Commissioners of Fisheries; but beyond that the Act takes away from mill-owners in Ireland a protection mill-owners in this country enjoy. This is one of the grievances the Bill is intended to remove, and which mill-owners are prepared to submit with the claims of the fishery owners to the judgment of a Select Committee. The remaining clauses of the Bill are taken from the English Salmon Fisheries Act, and simply confer on mill-owners in Ireland the same protection mill-owners in England enjoy. If it can be proved in evidence before the Committee that this protection is excessive, then those I represent are quite ready to abide by the decision. I have said this matter is of great importance to the milling industries in Ireland. There is in Antrim one tributary of the Bann upon which there are no less than 25 mills, all affected by the action of the Conservators of Fisheries on the Bann. I trust the House will, on the understanding that it shall be sent to a Select Committee, give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    MR. SETON-KARRLast Session I was one of those who were successful in the attempt to prevent the passing of the Bill in the small hours of the morning; and I may say now that I am entirely at issue with my hon. Friend on all the facts and the merits of the Bill. I represent a strong opposition to the Bill, not only in Lancashire, but in the West of Ireland, from fishing interests there. I have had a consultation with my hon. Friend, and those whom I represent desire that the facts upon which we are at issue with the promoters of the Bill should be most carefully examined before a Select Committee. I quite agree that

    803
    the issue being upon facts, a Select Committee is the best tribunal for threshing out the merits of the Bill. We are, as a matter of fact, prepared to show that the Bill is not required to meet the justice of the case, and I trust the Government may see their way to consent to the appointment of the Committee, and perhaps I may be permitted to say at this stage that in the composition of the Committee the Unionist Party should not be too strongly represented. We are prepared to prove that evidence of the Inspectors of Fisheries is entirely against the Bill in its present form, and I trust that the Second Reading if taken will be only on the understanding that the Bill shall go before a Select Committee.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELANDI am bound to say I have made inquiries from the Inspectors of Fisheries and it is right to say that they see great objections to the Bill as it stands at present. They inform me that a question arising as to one river is the cause of the Bill. (Mr. MCCARTHY: No, no.) I should be sorry to assist in passing a Bill which would do anything to diminish the value of salmon fishing in Ireland, upon which great expenditure has been incurred in the past. At the same time I quite understand it is possible there may be cases in the North of Ireland where manufacturing interests, also important, require that arrangements should be made, which, while preserving the salmon fishing, and providing that it shall be in no way injured, may secure to mill-owners those rights of water which are so valuable to their industry. I feel constrained to offer no opposition to the Second Reading now, on the distinct understanding that the inquiry before a Select Committee shall be very complete, and where it will be the duty of Inspectors of Fisheries to state their case.
    MR. M. HEALYIt is proposed to refer the Bill to a
    804
    Select Committee, but the terms of reference have not been put down. It is a mere reference without a statement as to sending for persons, papers, and records.
    MR. SPEAKERThat follows with the Motion for the nomination of the Committee.
    MR. M. KENNYBefore we submit this mischievous and uncalled for Bill to a Select Committee, it is well we should know how this Committee is constituted. A fair arrangement should be made for the nominations. I think it is premature to take the Second Reading to-night, and I would advise the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to first look about and see what arrangements he can make through the Whips of the respective Parties. Unless this is done, I must object to progress being made with the Bill. I do not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill at this hour, but I am convinced that its proposals are most mischievous from many points of view. It will really be of no benefit to mill-owners, some of whom are most anxious for the Bill, indeed, it will do some of them more injury than good. I shall, so far as I can, oppose the Bill throughout.
    COLONEL NOLANI must protest against a pernicious habit which is growing up of moving a Second Reading of a Bill, and saying who supports and who opposes but nothing upon the merits of the Bill itself. Now, I have rapidly read through the Bill, and I can tell the House more about it than the hon. Member has told us in moving the Second Reading. It provides for gratings being fixed to prevent salmon being drawn up by mill wheels—I should think a proper provision—and it controls the action of conservators in stopping up streams for the benefit of the salmon. Now, the conservators of rivers in Ireland are a ridiculous body. Anybody who pays £1 or £2 can be a conservator, and never

    805
    do anything unless there is an appointment to be made. A few Boards of Conservators are better; but, generally speaking, you might, in half an hour, collect in the Strand a body of men who would do the work as well as these conservators. I think the hon. Member might have given us some explanation of his Bill; but, however, if it is sent to a Select Committee probably some good will result.
    DR. TANNERI sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend in the desire to know something of a Bill we are asked to read a second time; but it should be said that last Session we did have a full exposition of the provisions of the Bill from the hon. Member opposite. But I rise to make an appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Kenny) to allow the Bill to go forward. I have received a number of representations which induces me to think there is every reason why the Bill should be threshed out before a Committee. If I have any influence with my hon. Friend I would appeal to him to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
    MR. M. KENNYI object.
    MR. MACARTNEYPerhaps I may be allowed to explain that I have followed the ordinary course, and I am quite ready to adopt the usual course for securing on the Committee the representation of all sections in the House.
    MR. COURTNEYI may explain to the hon. Member that it is impossible to nominate a Committee until a Bill is read a second time. If the Second Reading is taken now, the hon. Member will be equally master of the situation, because the Motion for the appointment of Members of the Committee if opposed cannot come on after midnight.
    MR. M. KENNYUnder the circumstances I withdraw my objection.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 34.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 39.)
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [17th February] further adjourned till to-morrow.
  CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 110.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 135.)
  Second Reading deferred from Tuesday next till Friday 11th March.
  MOTIONS.

    LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Rathbone, Bill to establish Limited Partnerships, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rathbone, Sir Horace Davey, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Alexander Brown, Mr. Lewis Fry, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Bryce.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 175.]

  WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Haldane, Bill to remove the disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Thomas Ellis.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 176.]

  SMALL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Haldane, Bill to facilitate the creation of Small Holdings and Allotments in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Robert Reid, and Mr. Munro Ferguson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 177.]

  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 177.]
  PARCEL POST (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 11th February; Mr. Henniker Heaton]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE No. 11).
  Copy presented,—of Ordinance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners with regard to the Regulations for Degrees in Arts (Ordinance No. 11, General. No. 6) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  (No. 12),—Copy presented,—of Ordinance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners with regard to the Regulations for Degrees in Science (Ordinance No. 12, General No. 7) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  (No. 13),—Copy presented,—of Ordinance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners with regard to the Regulations as to Examinations (Ordinance No. 13, General No. 8) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  (No. 14),—Copy presented,—of Ordinance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners with regard to the Regulations for Degrees in Medicine (Ordinance No. 14, Glasgow No. 1 [by ,Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  (No. 15.)—Copy presented—of Ordinance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners with regard to the Regulations for Degrees in Medicine (Ordinance No. 15, Aberdeen No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  (No. 16),—Copy presented,—of Ordinance made by the Scottish Universities Commissioners with regard to the Regulations for Degrees in Medicine (Ordinance No. 16, Edinburgh No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented—of Order made by the Secretary of State for the discontinuance of Nottingham Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHTHOUSES ABROAD.
  Account presented,—showing the dues received and expenditure incurred
  808
  in the construction, repair, and maintenance of Lighthouses in British Possessions Abroad during the year 1890-91 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  GLEBE LANDS (SALES).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the Sales of Glebes (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 121, of Session 1891)."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1891–2).
  Supplementary Estimate presented—of Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1892, in addition to the Sums already provided in the Estimates presented in the current year [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 53.]

  EASTBOURNE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1885 (PROSECUTIONS FOR OPEN AIR SERVICES, &c.)
  Address for—
  "Return showing (1) the number and particulars of the charges brought, from the 1st day of June, 1891, to the 18th day of February, 1892, before the Justices in Petty Sessions at Eastbourne, for offences under 'The Eastbourne Improvement Act, 1885,' or otherwise, committed by persons taking part in open air services or meetings, or processions with or without music, or for unlawful assembly; (2) the number and particulars of the charges brought before the said Justices during the same period for assaults on persons taking part in such services, or meetings, or processions, or on the police in connection therewith, or for breaches of the peace, or for damaging property, or threatening, or riotous conduct, or resisting the police in connection therewith; and (3) the results in all such cases, with the particulars of any sentences awarded, of other proceedings, if any, subsequent to conviction, and of any terms of imprisonment actually served."—(Mr. Rowntree.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT.
The Earl of Portsmouth—after the death of his father.
Daniel Lewis,Lord Bishop of Bangor was (in the usual manner) introduced.

QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (the Earl of LATHOM)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:—
"I return you My sincere thanks for your dutiful and affectionate Address, and for your sympathy with Me and My Family in the grievous loss which I and My people have suffered by the death of My beloved Grandson. The assurances of your participation in My personal sorrow have given Me very great satisfaction."
The Address and Answer ordered to be printed and published.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 4.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY):My Lords, I have a difficulty in suggesting to your Lordships anything new to say upon the subject of this Bill; it has been so completely before your Lordships, and, so far as I know, the universal opinion has been in its favour. I do not think I remember any dissentient voice upon the general principle of the Bill, given the conditions of the law of evidence as it at present stands. As your Lordships are aware, in a certain number of offences the law at present is that a person may give evidence on his own behalf if he elects to do so; and I am bound to say that, since your Lordships passed this Bill last year, one or two cases have occurred which certainly give a very strong illustration of the mode in which the present law of
  666
  evidence may be worked. There was one very striking case, in which I think an hon. Member of the other House was engaged as counsel, in which a man was charged with one of those offences about which he could be examined. He gave evidence, and, by reason of the evidence that he had given, he was acquitted before a jury. For some reason or another that I am unable to understand, which I suppose may or may not have been the act of the prosecutor, he was indicted for perjury given on the occasion upon which he was examined as a witness, and I need not tell your Lordships that under those circumstances (although the jury had acquitted him when they heard his story, and he was indicted afresh for perjury for saying the same thing) on that occasion of course his evidence was not receivable. Fortunately, as I think, he was again acquitted; but, had he been convicted, I really do not know what would have been the condition in which any Home Secretary would have been. That condition of things seems to me almost to speak for itself. The other case occurred during last year after the discussion in your Lordships' House. There was an old gentleman, I think 80 years of age, who had been tried and convicted, and had suffered punishment for an offence in respect of the sale of a vessel. The same question was raised by an action, and he was then, but he could not have been on the previous occasion, examined as a witness, and, by consent of counsel on both sides, and with the full opinion of the learned Judge, who tried the case, in his favour, it was admitted that he had actually proved his innocence, and there could have been no doubt that the former conviction, under which he had suffered imprisonment, was wrong, and that, had he been capable of giving the same evidence on the criminal trial, the result would have been different. These, my Lords, are two out of many cases; and I confess myself I am a little startled to find that when the opinion has been so all but universal, and so many times the Bill has passed your Lordships' House to enable all persons to have what most person's sense of justice must

  667
  regard as the right to give evidence in their own cases, for some reason or other this Bill has been unable to pass the other House. I do hope, my Lords, at all events, that this Session an effort will be made that it should pass, and that that right should be given which the universal sense of justice assents to, I think, as being the right of every person who is now accused. The only argument, my Lords, that I have heard against the Bill is one founded, as it appears to me, upon the notion that no person ought to be examined as a witness who is charged with any criminal offence. Whether rightly or wrongly, that is not the view of the Legislature. All the arguments appear to me now to be absolutely inconsistent with the action of the Legislature, which in, I think, 20 or 30 classes of offences has now distinctly admitted persons to be examined. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I do not think I can add more to what has been said on the subject. I can well remember a very great Judge, Lord Campbell, on one occasion adopting an expedient which I thought at the time exhibited a zeal a little beyond the law. There were cross indictments between two persons for assault, neither of whom, of course, was admissible as a witness in the case in which he was himself indicted. Lord Campbell swore both juries at once; and the result was that both the accused then became capable of being examined as witnesses. And I remember well thinking—it was when I was very young at the Bar—that, if that was right which Lord Campbell said was to be done, it was rather an indirect expedient for doing that which the law now would permit to be done universally. My Lords, I have only one more observation that I wish to make. The substantial provisions of the Bill are the same as those which your Lordships have more than once passed through the House. There are the safeguards to which I have referred, of the consent of the husband and wife, respectively, being required as the necessary condition of either being examined against the other. And, my Lords, I have to-day received a very singular communication from a very able County Court Judge, who tells me that in, I think he says, four cases this
  668
  singular condition of things has arisen—which might perhaps throw some doubt upon the propriety of the provision with reference to the consent of the husband and wife respectively. I only throw it out with reference to the passing of the Bill, and whether some provision might be made in Committee. It appears that an adulterous wife has procured a person to personate her husband and forge his signature, and the wife has been incapable of being prosecuted for forgery—the actual forger having escaped. The wife cannot be prosecuted, inasmuch as she certainly would not consent to the husband being examined to prove that the document in question, a promissory note, was a forgery; and the result is that she is perfectly independent of the law, and able to forge as many times as she can get the adulterer to aid her. Under those circumstances, my Lords, it may be a question whether there ought not to be some provision to meet such a case as that with regard to the consent being essential for the husband and wife, respectively, being examined. I think, with that exception, my Lords, I have nothing further to add, and I have now to ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELL:My Lords, I need hardly add anything to what the noble and learned Lord has said in favour of this Bill, because I have already on many occasions expressed my view to your Lordships' House that this measure ought to be passed into law. I only rise for the purpose of expressing the hope that the Government will now press forward this Bill, so that it may pass into law. So far as I know, the Bill might have been on the Statute Book by this time if it had not been for the apprehension with regard to its provisions which exists in the minds of some of the Irish Members, who do not desire it to be extended to Ireland. Now, of course, if the Government have time to deal with the question so as to pass it into law, nothwithstanding opposition, well and good; but I would earnestly urge this: that, if that be found impossible, on account of difficulties of time, at all events a measure

  669
  which is desired for England, and which everybody feels to be desirable for England, should not be delayed; because, if it passes into law here, and works, as I believe it will, satisfactorily, that will greatly diminish, and not in any way add to, any difficulty of hereafter extending it to Ireland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock.